January 30, 2018

"That’s a kind of buck-passing that excuses their spouses from having functional consciences and limited self-control. And marriage is a special kind of relationship, one where we make unusual commitments to love and support the other person that we might not extend to others. That devotion inevitably interferes with objectivity. If Hillary Clinton, or any other woman, is privately angry at or blinkered about another woman who comes forward to say that she had an affair with Bill Clinton, or that Bill Clinton sexually harassed her, I’m willing to allow Hillary Clinton that private fallibility and cruelty, that momentary lack of solidarity. We should all hope we find such forgiveness in moments when we’re faced with astonishing personal pain and respond in ways that demonstrate the limits of our strength.... I respect Clinton’s personal religious faith and the depth of her belief in forgiveness. What I can’t accept is the idea that forgiving [Burns] Strider means minimizing the consequences he faced for his behavior, especially when doing so put him in a position to offend again. Other women bore the cost when Clinton tried to focus on redeeming a man who worked for her rather than protecting the woman who did."

I'd never noticed the big "forgiveness" theme in the story of Hillary Clinton, but I have heard people justify her behavior as a special "wife" privilege. It's good to hear one of her proponents say now she's gone too far, but I think that's only happening because Hillary missed in her grasp at the presidency, so there's no partisan drive to defend her and because the #MeToo movement is so strong right now that it's just embarrassing to try to work out an exception for her. I see nothing but politics here.

Funny how easily these “feminists” completely disregard Juanita Braoddrick’s accusations, and the five contemporaneous witnesses, including the woman who found her bleeding, crying, and with torn clothes in the hotel room.

It’s just astonishing to me.

Except none of them cared about Mary Jo suffocating in that submerged car while Teddy Kennedy worried about his political career. So it’s not surprising at all.

What could possibly be more painful than watching Alyssa Rosenberg try to think? This is the woman who declared that "Romeo and Juliet" is a terrible play because it's not feminist and it glorifies teen suicide. She's a frickin' dunce. Moving on ...

"Clinton tried to focus on redeeming a man who worked for her" Funny stuff. Clinton rewarded loyalty in a team player and meant to keep guys on the reservation, women's tender feelings be damned. She didn't have any; why should they?

Bill and Hillary's relationship was always strictly business. Wifely emotions never entered the picture. Even Mafia wifes had more feeling and dedication than Hillary had for Bill. Has anyone seen them together since Hillary lost the election? Except maybe on a "business" trip?

I respect Clinton’s personal religious faith and the depth of her belief in forgiveness.

Okay, maybe, just maybe, HRC is a believing Christian whose faith shapes her life. I doubt it, but maybe I, too, should be more charitably Christian.

But, forgiveness! HRC & forgiveness? According to everything I've ever seen on that woman in the public record, HRC & forgiveness have never even been in the same room. The woman holds a grudge like a character out of a Conan the Barbarian novel.

For some reason, Forgiveness and the Clintons make me think of staged photos of the couple dancing on the beach with Don Henleys "the Heart of the Matter" playing in the background in some PR media clip put together by a friendly news agency to run on a morning news-tainment shows. Did that happen? Jeez. Sorry for the image if it didnt. Although, thinking about Clinton and Don Henley (on Althouse) leads me to remember when Lazlo did a great send up of Lindsay Buckingham and Don Henley for a few posts. Did that happen? I think I laughed, reading it. Proving that the good can be found (tangentially) in just about everything, as long as you go in the right direction.

It's funny; as I began to read this post, I actually didn't think that Althouse was going to use it as another chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton on grounds of hypocrisy/weakness/craven opportunism.

I had imagined that Althouse had already beaten that one to death.

I actually thought that Althouse was going to turn the argument; to something along the lines of, "Since Hillary is not assigned to govern her husband's behavior, Melania is not assigned to govern her husband's behavior, either."

When the Clintons were in power, I thought their marriage was creepy and phony and even ugly. Just like the Trumps now.

Marriage is a special relationship. It interferes with companionship and involves the gummint and lawyers in your private life. A friendship or unmarried partnership can be better and help you maintain your privacy and dignity.

Why would any rational person want to do anything the Pope favors, for Chrissake?

You can’t even fucking read, can you, Gabriel? I wrote not one kind word about the Clintons, much less did I “defend” either one of them.

You just seem to want to pretend that Trump is somehow not as bad as Slick Willie.

Both Silck Willie and The Donald are serial philanderers and liars. They’ve both been credibly accused of sexual misconduct and even sexual assault. Trump, perhaps more than Clinton. They’ve both demonstrated contemptible behavior including lying under oath. Trump, maybe more than Clinton. They’ve both led sham marital lives; Trump maybe more than Clinton. At least Clinton is still on marriage #1. And I’m not aware of Clinton making any payments to porn stars.

Melania is not out defending Donald. I don't think we'll ever see her defending Donald.

I think any interview will put those questions off limits. And if she never does another interview because they won't agree, she's not going to care.

And the reason is that unlike Hillary and Michelle, Melania's future is not tied to Trump's successful presidency. She's not hoping to get rich after he leaves office. She's not trying to leverage his administration into a political career for herself.

She's just a wife, who doesn't feel that her future is tied up in the public perception of her husband.

That's the subject here, Chuck, the actions of the wives not the allegations against the husbands.

If Hillary Clinton wants to forgive, accept, or ignore her husband's serial philandering, that's her business. But when she acts as an accomplice after the fact to rape and sexual assault, that's our business.

You just seem to want to pretend that Trump is somehow not as bad as Slick Willie.

No real Republican would say that Donald Trump is anything close to being as bad as William Jefferson Clinton. You thought you were baiting a trap from Trump supporters, but the trap has closed on you. No honest person would say that the allegations against Donald Trump are believable, much less credible, least of all after a $750,000 slush fund turned up to be used to pay women to make allegations of sexual harassment against Trump.

Both Silck Willie and The Donald are serial philanderers and liars. They’ve both been credibly accused of sexual misconduct and even sexual assault. Trump, perhaps more than Clinton.

Do dismissing a credible charge of forcible rape, in which Bill Clinton lured a supporter into a hotel room and forcibly raped her, leaving her bleeding and crying, with torn clothes, as described by a witness in her statement to federal investigators, In fact there are six statements to federal investigators backing this charge up. Dismissing the Broaddrick rape charge as if it doesn’t even exist, is that what a lawyer calls “not defending” somebody.

You should think about that over and over Chuck, and possibly it will sink into your thick skull that you ARE defending Bill Clinton.

Clinton was kicked out of Oxford for rape, most likely, and had an incident at Yale too, not #MeToo incidents either, this was way before that.

You don’t help your case when you ignore facts on the record Chuck.

Here, read what Federal investigators were told and the Clinton. machine’s responses here:

At some point Chuck, assuming he’s real and not some paid-for troll, will begin to understand that the readership here is either skimming past his comments, or reading them purely for the entertainment value of watching a man (if Chuck is a man) make a public fool of himself.

Althouse, I think you need a new tag that reflects the Hillary-gets-thrown-under-the-bus as a tactic to triangulate against Trump with regards to #MeToo. It isn't working, and likely won't work -- but it's long overdue and entertaining to watch the writers tie themselves up into knots.

I noticed Ms. Rosenberg's labored effort yesterday. Judging by her photo, she was just a tyke when Slick Willie was getting his willie slicked in the Oval Office, so maybe we should cut her some slack. Of course, one of the chief advantages of being a journalist is that they age slowly, if at all. At least, judging by their byline photos.

The problem with Hillary is not that she "stood by her man". The problem is that she viciously attacked his accusers, knowing that they were telling the truth. At the time, one could imagine that she was defending her husband, but it is now evident that what she thought she was doing was advancing her own career.